Homeopathy for Pregnancy, Birth, and Your Baby's First Year

1

UNDERSTANDING AND USING HOMEOPATHY

THE HISTORY OF HOMEOPATHY

SAMUEL HAHNEMANN (1755–1843)

Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, was born in Meissen in Saxony on 10 April 1755 into an era of change and political upheaval. The Seven Years’ War, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars threw Europe into turmoil; the Industrial Revolution brought social change and technological and scientific advances; there was also a revolution in thought – the political, spiritual and intellectual movement now known as the Enlightenment. The freedom of thought and opinion it encouraged was important for the birth and development of homeopathy.

Hahnemann was born into a poor and devout family who encouraged their son in his education. He qualified as a doctor in 1791 and practised medicine in Leipzig for about nine years, but he became increasingly disillusioned by the cruel and ineffective treatments of his time (blood-letting, purging, poisonous drugs with horrendous side effects) and gave up his practice, concentrating instead on study, research, writing and translation.

One of the major works he translated was Dr William Cullen’s A Treatise on Materia Medica. Cullen (1710–90) was an Edinburgh teacher, physician and chemist, and his book included an essay on Peruvian bark or Cinchona (which homeopaths call China), from which quinine, the treatment for malaria, is derived. Cullen attributed Cinchona’s ability to cure malaria, with its symptoms of periodic fever, sweating and palpitations, to its bitterness. Hahnemann, sceptical of this explanation, tested small doses on himself:

I took by way of an experiment, twice a day, four drachms of good China. My feet, finger ends, etc., at first became quite cold; I grew languid and drowsy; then my heart began to palpitate, and my pulse grew hard and small; intolerable anxiety, trembling, prostration throughout all my limbs; then pulsation, in the head, redness of my cheeks, thirst, and, in short, all these symptoms which are ordinarily characteristic of intermittent fever, made their appearance, one after the other, yet without the peculiar chilly, shivering rigor. Briefly, even those symptoms which are of regular occurrence and especially characteristic – as the stupidity of mind, the kind of rigidity in all the limbs, but above all the numb, disagreeable sensation, which seems to have its seat in the periosteum, over every bone in the whole body – all these made their appearance. This paroxysm lasted two or three hours each time, and recurred, if I repeated this dose, not otherwise; I discontinued it and was in good health.

In other words, Hahnemann observed that Cinchona produced in a healthy person the symptoms of malaria, the very disease that it was known to cure, a discovery which was a cornerstone in the development of homeopathy.

In the fifth century BC, Hippocrates, the ‘father of medicine’, wrote that there were two methods of healing: by ‘contraries’ and by ‘similars’. Although country people throughout the world have always used the principle of cure by ‘similars’ successfully in their own folk-medicines, the standard medical assumption has always been that if the body produced a symptom the appropriate treatment would be an antidote, an opposite or ‘contrary’ medicine to that symptom. For example, constipation would be treated with laxatives, which produce diarrhoea.

During the sixteenth century, Paracelsus, a German doctor known as the ‘father of chemistry’, made new departures in medicine and pharmacology based on chemical experiments and direct observation of nature. He set the stage for the germ theory by stating that the causes of disease were external, seed-like factors introduced into the body through air, food and drink. He believed in the natural recuperative power of the human body and saw nature in every person as a vital spirit. He investigated the law of similars and by using only one medicine at a time and giving careful attention to dosage, noted that a very small dose could overcome a great disease.

Hahnemann embarked on further experiments which confirmed this principle. By observing the symptoms any substance produced when given to a healthy person, Hahnemann found the healing properties of that substance. This testing procedure was called ‘proving’.

He referred to it as similia similibus curentur, or ‘let like be cured with like’; this principle became the first law of a system of healing he called ‘homeopathy’, from the Greek homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering or disease), in order to differentiate it from orthodox medicine, which he called ‘allopathy’, meaning ‘opposite suffering’.

Over several years he conducted many provings on his family and friends, and also studied accounts of the symptoms shown by victims of accidental poisonings. Finally he set up in medical practice again, but with a different basis for his prescriptions. He used the material he had gathered from the provings and for each of his patients looked for the similimum – the remedy whose ‘symptom picture’, based on the provings, most matched that of the patient. His methods were met with disbelief and ridicule from his colleagues, but the patients flowed in and his astonishing results verified his theory.

He also differed from conventional practitioners in giving only one remedy at a time. In an age when apothecaries made fortunes by mixing numerous substances, many of which were highly noxious, this earned him many enemies.

Hahnemann did not stop there: dissatisfied with the side effects of his medicines, he experimented with smaller and smaller doses. He found, however, that when he diluted a medicine sufficiently to eradicate the side effects, it no longer effected a cure. He developed a new method of dilution: instead of simply stirring the substance after each dilution he shook it vigorously. This shaking he called ‘succussion’ and the resultant liquid a ‘potentised remedy’. He found now that not only did the remedy lack side effects but the more he diluted it using succussion, the more effectively his remedy cured. He believed that the shaking released the strength or energy of the substance and dissipated its toxic effects.

Hahnemann numbered the potentised remedies according to the amount of times they had been diluted: a remedy diluted six times (taking out one hundredth of the liquid each time and adding 99/100 alcohol) was called a 6C (see here). Initially he prescribed remedies that had been diluted up to the sixth potency; then he experimented with the higher dilutions, finding them more effective still. Eventually he prescribed up to the 30th potency, and his followers took dilution even further.

This process of dilution incurred further derision from the medical establishment, who could not explain, and therefore could not accept, how anything so dilute could have any effect. Yet despite opposition, homeopathy survived and spread remarkably quickly – because it was remarkably effective.

Samuel Hahnemann lived before the germ theory of disease had been proposed, before thermometers, the X-ray and antibiotics made medicine appear increasingly ‘scientific’. Yet he himself was an innovative scientist of sufficient intellect and culture to combine science and metaphysics. Consciously and unconsciously, he drew on the traditions of German folk-medicine, alchemy and magic, as well as the developments in chemistry, pathology, pharmaceutics and medicine which were beginning to make diagnosis and treatment both more accurate and more humane. In later life he became a religious free-thinker, believing that God permeated every living thing, and that he was divinely chosen and guided in his work. His development of a safe and effective system of medicine has given the world a priceless gift.

Hahnemann’s literary output was prodigious. He proved about a hundred remedies, wrote over seventy original works, translated many texts on a wide range of subjects and also corresponded widely. In 1810 he published the first edition of The Organon of Rational Medicine (later The Organon of the Healing Art), which ran to six editions, each one modified and expanded. In it he set out clearly the homeopathic philosophy. In the same year, when Leipzig was besieged in the Napoleonic campaigns, his treatments of the survivors of the siege and the victims of the great typhus epidemic that followed were highly successful and further increased his reputation.

Between 1811 and 1821 Hahnemann published his Materia Medica Pura in six volumes; this represented the results of his provings – thousands of symptoms for sixty-six remedies. In 1828 came Chronic Diseases and Their Homeopathic Cure, in which he elaborated on the philosophy of The Organon, added more remedies, discussed the use of higher potencies and introduced the concept of ‘miasms’ to account for the failure of some patients to respond to treatment with remedies which clearly matched their symptoms. Among such people he found a family history of certain diseases and was able to link a tendency to a particular condition to the patient’s ‘inherited’ health. He developed a way of treating these blocks to health homeopathically (see Miasms).

In 1831 cholera swept through central Europe. Hahnemann advocated the remedy Camphor in the early stages and Cuprum metallicum, Veratrum album, Bryonia alba or Rhus toxicodendron in the later stages. He also stressed that clothing and bedding should be heated to destroy ‘all known infectious matters’ and advised cleanliness, ventilation and disinfection of the rooms, and quarantine. (These ideas were far ahead of his time: the work of Pasteur on the germ theory of disease and that of Lister on disinfection was still to come.) Cholera was more successfully treated with homeopathy than with orthodox medicine; mortality rates varied between 2.4 and 21.1 per cent compared with 50 per cent or more with conventional treatment.

He gave lectures about his theory at the university, which often deteriorated into violent tirades against current medical practices earning him the nickname ‘Raging Hurricane’. A few medical practitioners were prepared to go against mainstream opinion, trained under him and took his teachings out into the world.

In the 1820s, when homeopathy arrived in the USA, the state of orthodox medicine was, if anything, worse than it was in Europe. The practice of almost completely draining the body of blood (four-fifths was let) was advocated, even for children. A drug know as ‘Calomel’ (Mercurius chloride), which had been introduced originally to cure syphilis, was used as a standard purgative; its side effects were loss of teeth, seizure of the jaws and death from mercury poisoning.

Homeopathy was easily accepted, and flourished. Homeopaths were seen to be well-educated, hardworking people, and the metaphysical background appealed to many church people. It was adopted in particular by followers of Swedenborg (1689–1772), a visionary who believed himself a vehicle for a new religious revelation. His writings appealed to people who were studying the new sciences, such as Darwinism, and who were concerned about the conflict between science and orthodox religion. For many homeopaths this blend of reason and mysticism was ideal.

In 1846 the American Medical Association was founded, which adopted a code of ethics forbidding its members to consult homeopaths. Local and state medical societies were told to purge themselves of homeopaths and their sympathisers, but homeopathy had already made a positive mark on orthodox medicine: blood-letting abated, medical training improved and several homeopathic remedies found their way into allopathic prescribing. Public demand for homeopathic treatment continued.

The 1860s through to the 1880s saw the flowering of American homeopathy. Practitioners proved every conceivable remedy, often at great cost to their own health. There were some fifty-six homeopathic hospitals, thirteen lunatic asylums, nine children’s hospitals and fifteen sanatoriums. The homeopathic training colleges, unlike their allopathic counterparts, excluded neither women nor black people.

In 1826 a young well-connected English doctor called Frederick Quin studied with Hahnemann and on his return to London set up a homeopathic practice, treating many famous people, including Dickens and Thackeray. He established the British Homoeopathic Society (later the Faculty of Homoeopathy), and in 1849 founded the London Homoeopathic Hospital, where, during the cholera outbreak of 1854, deaths were a mere 16.4 per cent, compared with the 50 per cent average for other hospitals. The Board of Health suppressed this fact, explaining, ‘The figures would give sanction to a practice opposed to the maintenance of truth and the progress of science.’¹

After the Crimean War a medical bill was introduced in Parliament to outlaw homeopathy, but Quin’s friends in the House of Lords secured a saving amendment.

If Quin was the practical and fashionable force behind homeopathy in Britain, the two most influential writers and teachers were Robert Dudgeon, who translated Hahnemann’s texts into English, and Richard Hughes, a mild man with a conciliatory attitude towards the medical establishment as well as a rigorous and scientific attitude towards homeopathy. Queen Adelaide, wife of King William IV, brought homeopathy from her native Saxony to the British royal family. The royal family maintains an active involvement in homeopathy to this day. The Queen has her own consultant homeopath and carries her ‘black box’ of remedies with her on all her travels.

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

By the time of Hahnemann’s death in 1843, homeopathy was established throughout the world, although the mutual antagonism and distrust between homeopaths and allopaths continued to hinder its progress.

Developments in medicine around the close of the nineteenth century strengthened the orthodox camp: science had proved the existence of microbes, the old practices Hahnemann had condemned were diminishing, and powerful drugs were being developed. The pharmaceutical industry, helped by the power of advertising, became an effective and wealthy lobbying force behind allopathic medicine. Meanwhile the homeopathic establishment was weakened by internal division, and the public – and many homeopaths – were drawn to the side that could put its case most clearly.

The American Medical Association moved to close many homeopathic teaching institutions and mounted a huge anti-homeopathy propaganda campaign. Consequently, by 1918 the number of homeopathic hospitals in the USA had dwindled to seven. Great optimism accompanied the introduction of penicillin: doctors thought that a medical nirvana had been reached. They regarded the taking of a homeopathic case as too time-consuming – the five-minute prescription and a cure for every ill had arrived. Little did they realise that it was the dawn of a medical nemesis.

Homeopathy has spread rapidly throughout the world. It is popular over Asia, particularly in India where it is now officially recognised as a separate branch of medicine and is fully supported by the government. Although it is poorly represented in some European countries, other parts of Europe show a fast-growing interest. In France and Germany homeopathic medicines are readily available in most pharmacies and there are homeopathic consultants at some hospitals. Homeopathy is highly respected in many South American countries, with Mexico, Argentina and Brazil at the forefront. It is spreading in Australia, New Zealand, Greece and Israel although it is non-existent in the Arab states.

In 1946, when the National Health Service was established, homeopathy was included as an officially approved method of treatment and in Britain today its popularity is increasing rapidly. It is still practised under the auspices of the National Health in five hospitals in Bristol, Liverpool, Glasgow, Tunbridge Wells and London, and by some GPs, although the limit of time on consultations often means that antibiotics are handed out with the homeopathic medicines just in case the latter do not work.

Professional homeopaths run private practices and many participate in almost-free clinics for the needy. The Society of Homoeopaths, the organisation which represents the professional homeopath in this country, promotes the highest standards. From small beginnings in 1974, the number of registered members – who use the initials R.S.Hom. (Registered member) or F.S.Hom. (Fellow) after their names – increases annually and a dozen colleges train several hundred professional homeopaths each year.

PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS

The highest ideal of therapy is to restore health rapidly, gently, permanently; to remove and destroy the whole disease in the shortest, surest, least harmful way, according to clearly comprehensible principles.

So it was that Samuel Hahnemann, in The Organon, defined his goals for a new system of medicine. It is hard to imagine a description that could express more concisely the needs of both practitioner and patient.

The principles of homeopathy represent a complete view of the processes of health and disease. Since 1810, when The Organon was first published, they have proved resistant to major reinterpretation and are crucial to successful prescribing.

The Similimum or Law of Similars

This basic principle of homeopathy – similia similibus curentur or ‘let like be cured with like’ – states that any substance that makes you ill can also cure you: anything that can produce symptoms of disease in a healthy person can cure a sick person with similar symptoms.

By ‘symptom’ the homeopath means those changes that are felt by the patient (subjective) or observed by someone else (objective), which may be associated with a particular disease, or state of disease, and which are the outward expression of that state.

Provings

‘Proving’ is the name given to the homeopathic method of testing substances to establish their ‘symptom pictures’. Since Hahnemann’s first proving in 1790, hundreds of others have been carried out and their results collated in the great Materia Medicas (see here). In the 1940s, the Americans organised a programme of re-proving remedies, but it was abandoned when identical symptoms were elicited all over again.

Today, healthy volunteer provers of new, potentially medicinal substances are divided into two groups, with one group being given the unnamed substance and the other a placebo. It is always a double-blind trial: neither the provers nor the conductor of the proving knows at the time who is taking what. The remedies are sometimes tested in their diluted – potentised – form or, if they are not poisonous, in crude doses (in the ‘mother tincture’, see Potencies). All symptoms – physical, emotional and mental – are noted in detail, then gathered schematically and common themes noted.

Apart from such provings two other sources are used:

Accidental provings provide a rich source of valuable information that might not otherwise be available. Homeopaths have been able to add symptom pictures of substances such as deadly nightshade, the remedy Belladonna, or snake venom, such as Lachesis, to the Materia Medica by drawing on detailed accounts of accidental poisonings. Because these substances can cause serious conditions, they also have the ability to cure them, and so are of great value.

Cured symptoms After a remedy has been successfully prescribed, symptoms cured by it which did not emerge either in the provings or in the accidental provings are noted. If the remedy consistently cures these symptoms in many people, then they are added to its symptom picture.

The Materia Medica

The Materia Medica (Latin, meaning medical matter or material) lists the symptom pictures of each remedy as discovered in the provings. The many hundreds of remedies are arranged alphabetically and the symptoms of those remedies are arranged according to body area. New remedies are constantly being discovered and added.

The professional homeopath works with a number of Materia Medicas compiled by different homeopaths, each reflecting their own personal experience. They all have the same basic information, but the individual homeopath may interpret the material slightly differently. Within this vast amount of information certain patterns emerge and it is these patterns with which the homeopath becomes familiar. He or she will memorise the strong symptoms or keynotes of every remedy.

The Repertory

This is an index of symptoms from the Materia Medica listed in alphabetical order and thereby providing a valuable cross-referencing system. A good Repertory is essential as it is impossible to memorise the vast number of symptoms in the Materia Medica.

The Single Remedy

The classical homeopath gives one remedy at a time to gauge its effect more precisely than would be possible if two or more remedies were given together. Indeed, the remedies were all originally proved separately and it is consequently not known how they interact if mixed; combined remedies should only be considered once they have been proved in combination.

However, this most difficult aspect of homeopathic prescribing deters many people. Finding a single remedy to match the patient’s symptoms is a constant challenge and can involve an enormous amount of hard work. The lazy, busy or misguided homeopath may mix several remedies together in the hope that one may work, a hit-or-miss approach which is not true classical homeopathy, as Hahnemann defined it, and shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental principles.

The Infinitesimal Dose

The more a remedy is diluted and succussed (vigorously shaken), the stronger it becomes as a cure (see here). The concept of the infinitesimal dose is one of the great stumbling blocks for a conventionally trained scientific mind. Sceptics scoff at the idea that a very dilute solution of sea salt – beyond the point where there is any salt measurable in the solution – is capable of curing a wide range of complaints, from cold sores, hayfever and headaches to depression (see Natrum muriaticum). Logically, it does seem unlikely that a substance that can cause high blood pressure in its crude form could become a strong and effective agent for healing when it is so dilute. However, a pharmacological law states that although a large dose of poison can destroy life, a moderate dose will only paralyse and a very small dose will actually stimulate those same life processes.

New discoveries in physics are beginning to explain this phenomenon. One theory is that the succussion creates an electrochemical pattern which is stored in the dilutant and which then spreads like liquid crystal through the body’s own water. Another hypothesis suggests that the dilution process triggers an electromagnetic imprinting which directly affects the electromagnetic field of the body.

Potencies

There are two scales for diluting substances: the decimal and the centesimal. In all cases the starting remedy – a ‘tincture’ or ‘mother tincture’ – is made by steeping the substance itself in alcohol and then straining it.

For the decimal scale, one-tenth of the tincture is added to nine-tenths alcohol and shaken vigorously; this first dilution is called a 1X. The number of a homeopathic remedy reflects the number of times it has been diluted and succussed: for example, Sulphur 6X has been diluted and succussed six times.

The centesimal scale is diluted using one part in a hundred of the tincture (as opposed to 10) and the letter C is added after the number (although in practice homeopaths have omitted the C and just use the numbers for the centesimal scale).

Paradoxically, a 6X is called a low potency and 200(C) a high potency – the greater the dilution, the greater the potency.

The most commonly used potency in the decimal scale is the 6X, although the 9X, 12X, 24X and 30X are used by some. In the centesimal scale those low potencies most commonly used are the 6, 12 and 30. The higher potencies – 200, 1M (diluted one thousand times), 10M (ten thousand times) and CM (one hundred thousand times) – are highly respected by homeopaths and should not be used by the home prescriber.

‘Inert’ substances (such as Lycopodium, the tiny spore of the club moss) are ground for several hours with a pestle and mortar until they become soluble. This process, called ‘trituration’, is used for metals as well as other substances that do not dissolve easily to prepare them for succussion.

The Whole Person

The concept of treating the ‘whole person’ is an essential element of classical homeopathy. The basis of this belief is that symptoms, diseases or pains do not exist in isolation, but are a reflection of how the whole person is coping with stress. It is the whole person that counts, not just the physical body but also the mental and/or emotional ‘bodies’. The homeopath looks beyond the ‘presenting complaint’, beyond the label of the disease (for example, ‘tonsillitis’, ‘migraines’ or ‘food poisoning’) to the ‘totality of symptoms’ experienced. The prescription is individualised to fit the whole person.

As far as first-aid prescribing is concerned, it is possible to prescribe on a single symptom such as, for example, chilblains or mouth ulcers, but it is always preferable to find a remedy that matches more of a person’s symptom picture, taking into account as many pieces of the jigsaw as possible.

Constitution and Susceptibility

I often hear people say enviously about a friend, ‘He smokes like a chimney, drinks like a fish, works like a maniac and has never had a day’s illness in his life. It’s not fair. I struggle constantly to stay healthy and need nine hours’ sleep a night, otherwise I get sick. Why?’

The answer lies in the constitution. The person who works all hours and smokes and drinks as if there were no tomorrow has a strong constitution – and may well be wasting his ‘inheritance’, because there will come a time when it will run out, when even he will get sick.

In The Science of Homeopathy George Vithoulkas defines the constitution as ‘the genetic inheritance tempered or modified by our environment’, that is, a person’s fundamental structure – their state of health and their temperament. A strong constitution can withstand considerable pressure without falling ill; a weak constitution has a greater susceptibility to illness.

Susceptibility is simply the degree to which a person is vulnerable to an outside influence. In an epidemic not everyone will be affected, but those who are we call ‘susceptible’. Their predisposition is due to an underlying constitutional weakness, which is either inherited or due to past and/or current stress (mental, emotional or physical).

If your grandparents all died of old age and your parents have been healthy all their lives; if your birth was planned and your mother was healthy throughout her pregnancy (didn’t smoke, drink, etc.); if your parents’ marriage is happy and your birth was uneventful, then your constitution should be of the strongest.

If, on the other hand, all your grandparents died at early ages of cancer or heart disease, one of your parents had tuberculosis as a child and the other suffered from asthma and eczema, then your chances of inheriting a weak constitution are greater. You can still escape the worst of a poor inheritance if your parents’ marriage is happy, if they have taken care of their own health, and brought you up with plenty of love and a good diet.

And that is where alternative medicine comes in. Many people come to a homeopath for ‘constitutional treatment’, to improve their general health rather than wait until they fall ill. The value of constitutional treatment is that it boosts the weak constitution and decreases its susceptibility to disease. Homeopathy strengthens the body’s vitality and its ability to respond to stress without recourse to other medicines.

The Vital Force

Homeopaths believe that a balancing mechanism keeps us in health, provided that the stresses on our constitution are neither too prolonged nor too great. Hahnemann called it the ‘vital force’ and he believed it to be that energetic substance, independent of physical and chemical forces, that gives us life and is absent at our death.

The human organism, indeed any living thing, has a unique relationship with its environment, which biologists refer to as ‘homeostasis’. This means that a healthy living being is self-regulating, with an innate (protective) tendency to maintain its equilibrium and compensate for disruptive changes. Homeopaths believe that the vital force produces symptoms to counteract stresses and makes adjustments, moment by moment throughout our lives, to keep us healthy and balanced. These symptoms, then, are simply the body’s way of telling us how it is coping with stress. Obvious examples are shivering when cold, perspiring when overheated and eating or drinking when hungry or thirsty, reactions which help to ensure the regulation of a constant, life-preserving environment within the body. Disease ‘attacks’ only when this vital force is weakened.

Homeopathic medicines act as a catalyst, the remedy stimulating the body’s own vital force to heal itself. They do not weaken the defence mechanism by suppressing it as do many orthodox medicines. The correct homeopathic treatment not only alleviates the symptoms but enables the patient to feel that life is once again flowing harmoniously.

Acute and Chronic Disease

Acute disease is self-limiting; it is not deep-seated and, given time, will usually clear of its own accord. Some acute illnesses, such as pneumonia, meningitis or nephritis, for example, are very serious and can, although rarely, be fatal. These are not within the scope of the home prescriber and always need expert advice.

An acute disease has three definite stages: the incubation period, when there may be no symptoms of disease; the acute phase, when the recognisable symptoms surface; the convalescent stage, when a person usually improves. Coughs, colds, flu, food poisoning and children’s illnesses such as chickenpox are all examples of acute illnesses. Well-chosen homeopathic remedies will speed up recovery, alleviate pain and ensure that there are no complications. (See here and here as well as the complaints sections of chapters 3, 4 and 5 for the acute illnesses or complaints you can and cannot treat using this book.)

Chronic disease is more deep-seated than acute disease. It develops slowly, continues for a long time and is often accompanied by a general deterioration in health. The development of the disease does not take a predictable course; neither is it possible to say for how long it will last. An acute disease that is followed by complications can develop into a chronic, long-term illness.

Arthritis, heart disease, cancer and mental illness are all examples of chronic disease. Homeopaths believe that the current increase in incidence of these conditions is in part due to chemical stresses, including the overuse of orthodox medicines and environmental pollution.

Miasms

In his early years in practice, Hahnemann was puzzled to find that some patients failed to respond to their constitutional remedies and others who improved relapsed after only a short time. He collected these ‘difficult’ cases together and after much careful study found a common factor in the presence of certain diseases in their personal or family history, which he realised must constitute blocks to health preventing the indicated constitutional remedy from working. He called the blocks ‘miasms’ and developed a comprehensive and complex theory around them. His insights have enabled the professional homeopath to assess through the history of a patient (both personal and inherited) their likely constitutional strength and often to predict the sort of blocks that they might encounter during the course of constitutional treatment.

Hahnemann defined three basic miasms which he believed to be the underlying causes of chronic disease, each of which predisposes a person to a particular range of health problems which he also defined at length. The three miasms were: Psora, which he associated with suppressed skin diseases and with leprosy; Sycosis, associated with suppressed gonorrhoea; and Syphilis, associated with suppressed syphilis. Homeopaths have since added many more including tuberculosis, radiation and heavy metals. The treatment of miasms is always a matter for the professional homeopath, not for self-treatment.

The Laws of Cure

The Laws of Cure were formulated by Constantine Hering (a doctor, homeopath and a follower of Hahnemann), who based them on a lifetime’s observation of the processes involved when sick patients became well. Throughout his years of practice he was able to draw the following conclusions:

• As someone becomes well, symptoms move from the innermost organs of the body (those most vital to life) to the outer organs. Therefore, cure moves from within to without. For example, someone with heart disease (serious, life-threatening) may experience stomach or bowel problems during the process of cure.

• Cure also takes place from above to below, so that symptoms usually ‘drip off’ the body, starting from the head and clearing downwards, with the hands and the feet (sometimes simultaneously) being the last to be affected (with, say, a skin eruption).

• Symptoms that have been suppressed in the past often resurface during the process of cure and usually do so in the reverse order from their original sequence. For example, if a patient with heart disease had been successfully treated with orthodox medicines for a stomach ulcer before the heart condition, then the appearance of stomach symptoms (less severe than in the original complaint) would be welcomed as a sign that the old suppressed symptoms were being cleared out.

The suppression of a disease usually leads to a more deep-seated illness surfacing. For example, many children whose eczema has been ‘successfully’ treated with steroids may suffer from asthma later in life. These two events are seen by the orthodox medical profession as having only a casual connection, whereas the homeopath believes that the suppression of the eczema has caused the asthma. Successful homeopathic treatment involves the eczema reappearing at some point.

It is also possible to suppress with homeopathic medicines by treating a single symptom and not therefore taking into account the whole person.

Homeopaths use the Laws of Cure to monitor treatment, to check whether the cure is going in the ‘right’ direction. These laws apply to the treatment of chronic complaints but occasionally also to acute prescribing. As far as acute treatment or home prescribing is concerned, a very well-selected constitutional remedy will occasionally push to the surface old symptoms that may have been forgotten. These will clear of their own accord. It is important not to prescribe another remedy and by so doing encourage the chronic condition to go back ‘in’ again.

Health and Disease

Health is more than simply the absence of disease. I believe it is a sense of well-being, of feeling good, of being in balance, that is hard to dislodge. It is, above all, the ability to withstand stress.

When we are physically healthy we have strength and flexibility, and a reservoir of energy to draw on should we need it. When we are emotionally healthy we can acknowledge and express our feelings and by so doing maintain rewarding relationships. When we are mentally healthy we can think clearly, formulate ideas, solve problems and make decisions easily.

Disease limits our personal freedom; a broken leg, for example, limits physical freedom by making it difficult to walk. Depression can limit emotional freedom because it is difficult to interact with other people. Mental exhaustion after, say, a taxing exam makes it difficult to concentrate and make decisions and therefore limits our mental freedom. If you fall ill it is often useful to ask yourself how and why that illness is limiting you.

The orthodox medical view, or germ theory, of disease is that illness is a ‘bad’ thing. An alternative medical view is that disease is a ‘good’ thing, alerting the body to the necessity of taking some time to recuperate or to have a good clear-out.

I believe that disease is neither good nor bad. The disease we succumb to provides us with information about our personal weaknesses, about how we are living our lives and how we are coping with stress. It alerts us to the existence of something that needs attention.

Building Health – Preventive Medicine

The desire to rid the body of disease is a healthy attitude, although any approach that involves building health and therefore preventing disease or ill-health will, of course, be of greater benefit in the long term than any temporary suppression of the symptoms alone. How we approach illness, as well as the treatment we choose, deserves some thought.

The presence of disease or pain often creates anxiety, which in turn can lead to fear and panic. Most of us have consulted an authoritative figure (a doctor) to allay our anxiety by putting a name to what is happening to our bodies, and to determine how it must be treated. The danger here is that, in looking outside ourselves for the answers and in asking too few questions, we experience a loss of personal control with consequent feelings of helplessness. We give up responsibility for our own health to the people ‘in charge’ and we become real patients, or, as I see it, victims. We find that we feel unable to confide misgivings, to express our instincts about our own health, or to explore other options. We become passive consumers of medical care.

As patients, how can we redress the balance? The first step is to become informed, by reading and talking to people who are sympathetic to our views (and doubts), and who may have had similar experiences. We must also learn to ask for what we need, to make realistic demands of health-care professionals, and to seek the help of doctors and specialists, both orthodox and alternative, who are willing to communicate with us, who are able to acknowledge that we, the patients, have a part to play in our own healing processes, and who are therefore able to give us the information we need, and deserve, about what they think is happening.

By taking responsibility for what happens to our bodies we can begin to create for ourselves the balance we want in our lives, and tune into our own feelings, or inner sense, of what is wrong. By developing a positive approach towards creating a healthy life we can move away from automatically taking a defensive position towards illness.

Stress

We all vary in our ability to adapt to and cope with stress. Understanding our own stress limits is tremendously important.

I divide stress into two main categories: healthy stress and unhealthy stress. Healthy stress pushes you to perform better and achieve more than usual in certain circumstances: for example, to work all hours in your job during a crisis or to gain that little extra from your body during a race (or during labour!). Unhealthy stress brings you too near to that ‘last straw’ state where your own coping mechanisms are overstretched, when your performance level starts to drop. You make mistakes. You fall ill.

Under stress our bodies let us know when the pressure is too great by producing the symptom(s) of illness. And when symptoms surface on one level, other levels are often affected. For example, a head injury (physical) can initially cause shock (emotional) and amnesia (mental) as well as pain (physical). A difficult, aggressive boss can create an emotionally stressful environment for his staff, who may produce physical ailments such as headaches, indigestion or neck pain as a response to suppressed emotions. (The suppression of any emotion can be harmful: it takes a lot of energy to suppress joy and will be as stressful as holding in rage.)

We respond to different stresses in different ways, according to our age and resources. Giving birth at forty is a bigger physical stress than doing so at twenty when a woman’s body is more supple and she has greater energy resources – but an older, more mature woman may find herself less emotionally stressed by motherhood.

The body operates as a unit, with the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual working together to maintain a balance. Each aspect needs nourishment, but mental and emotional nourishment is often lacking in our society. Because of the widespread rejection of religion many people do not have a time of peace or quiet in their lives to reflect or just be. To still the mind and let the cares of life drift away is a deeply healing process. You can do this by meditating, daydreaming, painting and writing, walking and enjoying nature or through prayer.

You can also nourish yourself with food, sleep, massage, spending time with friends or family members who accept you as you are, who will listen when needed, and provide you with loving support and advice. Laughter is one of nature’s great healers. Letting go of the serious business of living and having fun is essential to maintaining health.

Recognising and Dealing with Stress

Learn to recognise the first symptoms of being overstressed, when the body shows early-warning signs but before illness develops. Being ill can be a fruitful way of coping with stress although, of course, disease itself can be stressful, especially if you take antibiotics or homeopathic remedies and carry on. You need to stop, rest and allow time for self-healing.

As a home prescriber, it is important to understand that disease is a response to stress. Identifying the stress is the first step: you can use the stress symptom and the response to prescribe on. Some people are sensitive to physical stresses, for example, to changes in the weather, always falling ill with a cold when the warm summer weather first changes to cold. Others are more vulnerable to emotional stress, and find it hard to cope with upsets at home or at work.

The more we understand about how we react to stress the better able we are to deal with it and choose how to respond to it.

Get to know your own stress response. What can you cope with? What are your limits? How do you recognise them? How can you stretch your limits when you have to? What nourishes you? How do you balance the stress in your life? Assess your reserves and strengths for dealing with it; look at ways in which you can balance it. Avoid unnecessary stress. Learn to offload, delegate, say no – and ask for support and help.

Remember that you are an important person in your own life. You need to look after yourself so that you can do your job(s) well – so that you can be a healthy mother/father/friend/employee/homeopath or whatever!

MYTHS AND MISAPPREHENSIONS

Many homeopaths, believing that the explanation of how homeopathy works is secondary to its success, have traditionally refused to reveal the names of the medicines they give. This and the lack of information they have provided about their practice has led to an aura of secrecy in which myths abound. Let’s look at a few of